wtf, so the new movie won't have Krypton, Jor-El, Lara, infant Kal-El, spaceship crash to Earth?????

what!?
so they have a new approche to this i see
maybe this time Jor-el cut off his gonads and send this to a mini spaceship that craches on earth and some human found them and have them transplanted and start making super baby to his wife
LOL

From how I personally understand the situation, WB/DC can continue to use anything & everything in regards to the Superman character. However if they wish to use anything they'll have to pay the Siegal family for the right to use whichever element that they control.. which seems to be the case because they couldn't make a film without some sort of agreement because the Siegal family own parts of the character/story that there just wouldn't be a film without.

Really it is in the best interests for all parties, Siegal family/DC/WB to work together. They need to because the Siegal family own several important elements of the character & in the same respect so do DC/WB.. if either party breaks down they're both gonna end up with vurtually 2 bits of story which seperated are practically useless.. but together are like gold.

Even if the heirs had the power to prevent certain elements from being used, why would they? They get a cut of the profits from the movie, so why would they want it to be half-assed and risk not making as much money off of it? This whole issue is about money, not the creative use of Superman as a character. It's not like the heirs are doing this lawsuit because they want to sell the Superman license to Marvel or Classic Media or some other such corporate entity. They want to be paid for Superman's continuing useage by Warner Bros. and DC, because that is where the property is the most valuable.

Look at the issue this way: Warner Bros. owns a really awesome, one-of-a-kind hotrod car body, and the heirs own the only engine that will fit inside of it. Each component by itself is worthless, but together they are super valuable. The logical solution is for the two to come to an agreement of how to share the components, rather than clinging to what they have and refusing to cooperate.

i think its BS that they can sue for something that they made an agreement on a long time ago. Its like selling a painting for cheap then finding out how valuable it was so you sued the guy you sold it for, makes no sense.

Im rooting for WB. Joanne wants them to roll over and pay them what she wants, she basically says it in her PR stunt letter, telling Jeff the previous guy paid whatever they wanted.

It was because of a change in copyright law. Basically, the new law stated that if people sold the rights for their creations prior to the law's enactment, their estate can sue to get the rights back. Since Siegel and Schuster created the Superman comic and then sold it to DC, the new law allowed their heirs to sue DC. Other heroes were safe, since they were created while the writers were under DC's employment meaning that they were all created as work for hire, but with Superman they bought the character from a third party (Siegel and Schuster), which made it vulnerable to the new law. The reasoning for the new law was because writers and artists did not have very good legal representation half a century ago, and many of them unwittingly made poor deals with the big companies. Siegel and Schuster sold the rights for Superman for only $300 (about $4600 in today's money), which to two struggling comic makers would have seemed like a lot of money. I think it's fair to say DC did not cut them a good deal back then, but unfortunately they'd probably still be tangled up in this lawsuit even if they had offered them millions of dollars.

It was because of a change in copyright law. Basically, the new law stated that if people sold the rights for their creations prior to the law's enactment, their estate can sue to get the rights back. Since Siegel and Schuster created the Superman comic and then sold it to DC, the new law allowed their heirs to sue DC. Other heroes were safe, since they were created while the writers were under DC's employment meaning that they were all created as work for hire, but with Superman they bought the character from a third party (Siegel and Schuster), which made it vulnerable to the new law. The reasoning for the new law was because writers and artists did not have very good legal representation half a century ago, and many of them unwittingly made poor deals with the big companies. Siegel and Schuster sold the rights for Superman for only $300 (about $4600 in today's money), which to two struggling comic makers would have seemed like a lot of money. I think it's fair to say DC did not cut them a good deal back then, but unfortunately they'd probably still be tangled up in this lawsuit even if they had offered them millions of dollars.

Very nicely put.

__________________

“That’s how it starts… the fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness…
That turns good men cruel.”

At some point though there is going to be a settlement. Ultimately the character of superman employes a lot of people, as a judge would you want to make that decision and put hundreds of people out of work. When you look at what the families own its less than half of what the character is, the other half the WB owns which include the S symbol, arguably the most important part to the character. Its more a question of when, not if. The best outcome would be for a settlement but obviously the lawyers are being stubborn.